(January 21, 2014 at 5:14 am)Aractus Wrote:(January 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Chas Wrote: Did you even read your link? It does not say that it's been proven - it says that the question is not settled.It is a moral issue - from the link I posted:
And my point was and is that it is not a moral issue.
- The disease theory of alcoholism is just that... an unproven theory.
Dr. Herbert Fingarette has observed that the disease theory of alcoholism is embodied in four propositions:
- Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
- The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
- Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition ('cure the disease') or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
- Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures."
Really, you're getting your definition of the disease model of alcoholism [indirectly] from an article titled, "Why We Should Reject the Disease Concept of Alcoholism," posted in an article written by a sociology professor who "is a critic of many groups that advocate the reduction of alcohol use" and describes such groups as "neo-prohibitionist”? (Wikipedia: Professor David J. Hanson)
Okie dokie. Nothing biased there!